Real Property

This summary also appears under Probate


Issues: Petition to approve the sale of real estate; Failure to support a claim; Peterson Novelties, Inc. v. City of Berkley; Herald Co. v. Tax Tribunal; Denial of appellant's re-notice of hearing and his motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3); Woodard v. Custer; Damages under MCR 7.216(C)(1); MCR 7.211(C)(8); In re Daniels Estate; Personal representative (PR)

Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished)

Case Name: In re Estate of Perun

e-Journal Number: 57519

Judge(s): Per Curiam – Murray, Jansen, and Shapiro


The court affirmed the order approving the sale of real estate. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for reconsideration. However, it rejected the appellee-PR's request to award her damages under MCR 7.216(C)(1), on the basis that appellant's appeal was vexatious. Appellee filed a petition for approval of the sale of a parcel of real estate (the property). That same day, she also filed a petition for partial distribution. At the hearing on appellee's petitions, appellant attempted to raise the issues of rent and property taxes that the trial court noted were not properly before the trial court. The trial court determined that "there was nothing inappropriate about the proration of taxes between the purchaser and the seller, and granted the petitions." On appeal, as in the trial court, appellant failed to cite any support for his statement that the trial court erred in denying the petition to approve the sale of the property because "proper procedures" were not followed. "In other words, appellant merely concludes that the trial court did not follow proper procedures in approving the sale" of the property, but did "not provide any law to support his conclusory statements. An appellant may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to discover and rationalize the basis for his claims, nor may he give issues cursory treatment with little or no citation of supporting authority." Thus, appellant failed to establish that the trial court abused its discretion in concluding that he failed to show that it "made a palpable error and that a different disposition would result from correction of the error."


Full Text Opinion
Back to e-Journal Mobile
News/Moves | Classifieds | Contacts | Full Version

© 2014 State Bar of Michigan